pyrojim wrote in post #14364855
My my my how fast we forget the heritage of a lens.
The 24-105 is based (in focal length and aperture on principle) on the FD 35-105 F3.5.
Now when you say 36 something millimeters is not wide enough for most people? Is that because YOU have grown accustomed to fast AND generously wide standard zoom lenses?
You have a good point. Yes I am probably accustomed to the current lenses offered from Canon. However, it doesn't change the fact that the 17-55mm lens on a crop body is much more useful as a general purpose lens to most people. If you are asking if I am alone in my thinking I am definitely not. I have read countless posts with people saying they would not use the 24-105 as a general purpose lens on a crop body. They may all be accustomed to the new, wider zooms available, but that shouldn't really determine which lens they should choose.
I do not know what lenses were offered by Canon in the FD days. However, if what you say is true, I assume people either a) needed to buy a seperate lens for what today is considered wide enough for a general purpose lens by most people. Or b) People were so used to 35mm being 'wide' that the 35-105 was satisfactory as a general purpose zoom. I believe that is your point. But that is no longer the case. Multiple lenses exist for crop bodies (17-55, 15-85, many non-Canon lenses) and full frame bodies (24-70, 24-105, 17-40, more and many non-Canon lenses) so a comprimise is no longer neccessary. And it is a compromise. No photographer would pass up the extra 11mm at the wide end, all other things being equal. What was standard in the past is no longer the only option. And it doesn't change the fact that a 17-55mm lens on a crop body will be more useful as a general purpose zoom to most people than a 24-70 (How this debate came about). The compromise is no longer needed. People I'm sure are now accustomed to the wider zooms available, but as technology progresses there is no reason to base decisions on what was standard in the FD days.